18. The judges
said: We desire to have information from you on this point,
Manichæus, to wit, to what effect you have affirmed him to be
evil. Do you mean that he has been so from the time when men were
made, or before that period? For it is necessary that you should
give some proof of his wickedness from the very time from which you
declare him to have been evil. Be assured1602
| 1602 Routh,
however, points differently, so that the sense is: Be assured
that it is necessary to give some proof, etc.…For the quality of
a wine, etc. |
that the quality of a
wine cannot be
ascertained unless one first
tastes it; and understand that, in like
manner, every
tree is known by its fruit. What say you,
then? From what time has this personality been
evil? For an
explanation of this problem seems to us to be necessary.
Manes
said: He has always been so.
Archelaus
said: Well, then, I shall also show from this, most excellent
friends, and most judicious auditors, that his statement is by no means
correct. For
iron, to take an example, has not been an
evil thing
always, but only from the period of man’s existence, and since
his art turned it to
evil by applying it to false uses; and every
sin
has come into existence since the period of man’s being.
Even that great
serpent himself was not
evil previous to man, but only
after man, in whom he displayed the fruit of his
wickedness, because he
willed it himself. If, then, the
father of
wickedness makes his
appearance to us after man
has come into being, according to the
Scriptures, how can he be unbegotten who has thus been constituted
evil
subsequently to man, who is himself a production? But, again, why
should he exhibit himself as
evil just from the period when, on your
supposition, he did himself
create man?
1603
| 1603 The
text is, “ex hominis tempore a se creati cur malus
ostendatur,” which is taken to be equivalent to, “ex
tempore quo hominem ipse creavit,” etc. |
What did he desire in him? If
man’s whole body was his own workmanship, what did he ardently
affect in him? For one who ardently affects or desires, desires
something which is different and better. If, indeed, man takes
his origin from him in respect of the
evil nature, we see how man was
his own, as I have frequently shown.
1604
| 1604 The
reading adopted by Migne is, “si ergo ex eo homo est, mala
natura, demonstratur quomodo suus fuit, ut frequenter
ostendi.” Others put the sentence interrogatively = If man
takes his origin from him, (and) the evil nature is thus demonstrated,
in what sense was man his own, etc.? Routh suggests ex quo
for ex eo = If the evil nature is demonstrated just from the
time of man’s existence, how was man, etc.? |
For if man was his own, he was also
evil himself, just as it holds with our illustration of the like
tree
and the like fruit; for an
evil tree, as you say, produces
evil
fruit. And seeing that all were
evil, what did he desiderate, or
in what could he show the beginning of his
wickedness, if from the time
of man’s formation man was the cause of his
wickedness?
Moreover, the
law and
precept having been given to the man himself, the
man had not by any means the
power to yield obedience to the
serpent,
and to the statements which were made by him; and had the man then
yielded no obedience to him, what occasion would there have been for
him to be
evil? But, again, if
evil is unbegotten, how does it
happen that man is sometimes found to be stronger than it? For,
by obeying the
law of
God, he will often overcome every root of
wickedness; and it would be a ridiculous thing if he, who is but the
production, should be found to be stronger than the unbegotten.
Moreover, whose is that
law with its
commandment—that
commandment, I mean, which has been given to man? Without doubt
it will be acknowledged to be
God’s. And how, then, can the
law be given to an
alien? or who can give his
commandment to an
enemy? Or, to speak of him who receives the
commandment, how can
he
contend against the
devil? that is to say, on this supposition, how
can he
contend against his own creator, as if the son, while he is a
debtor to him for
deeds of
kindness, were to choose to
inflict injuries
on the
father? Thus you but mark out the profitlessness
1605
| 1605 The
reading is inutilitatem. But Routh points that this is
probably the translation of τὴν
εὐτέλειαν,
vilitatem, meanness. |
of man on this
side, if you suppose him to be contradicting by the
law and
commandment
him who has made him, and to be making the effort to get the better of
him. Yea, we shall have to fancy the
devil himself to have gone
to such an excess of
folly, as not to have perceived that in making man
he made an
adversary for himself, and neither to have considered what
might be his future, nor to have foreseen the actual consequence of his
act; whereas even in ourselves. who are but productions, there are at
least some
small gifts of
knowledge, and a measure of
prudence, and a
moderate degree of consideration, which is sometimes of a very
trustworthy
nature. And how, then, can we believe that in the
unbegotten there is not some little portion of
prudence, or
consideration, or intelligence? Or how can we make the contrary
supposition, according to your assertion, namely, that he is
discovered
to be of the most senseless apprehension, and the dullest
heart and in
short rather like the brutes in his
natural constitution? But if
the case stands thus, again, how is it that man, who is
possessed of no
insignificant
power in mental capacity and
knowledge, could have
received his substance from one who thus is, of all beings, the most
ignorant and the bluntest in apprehension? How shall any one be
rash enough to profess that man is the workmanship of an
author of this
character? But, again, if man consists both of
soul and of body,
and not merely of body without
soul, and if the one cannot subsist
apart from the other, why will you assert that these two are
antagonistic and contrary to each other? For our
Lord Jesus
Christ, indeed, seems to me to have spoken of these in His
parables,
when He said: “No man can put new
wine into old bottles,
else the bottles will
break, and the
wine run out.”
1606
But new
wine
is to be put into new bottles, as there is indeed one and the same
Lord
for the bottle and for the
wine. For although the substance may
be different, yet by these two substances, in their due powers, and in
the maintenance of their proper mutual relations,
1607
| 1607
Dominatione et observantiæ usu. |
the one person of man subsists. We
do not say, indeed, that the
soul is of one substance with the body,
but we aver that they have each their own characteristic qualities; and
as the bottle and the
wine are applied in the similitude to one race
and one species of men, so
truth’s reckoning requires us to grant
that man was produced complete by the one
God: for the
soul
rejoices in the body, and
loves and cherishes it; and none the less
does the body
rejoice that it is quickened by the
soul. But if,
on the other
hand, a person maintains that the body is the
work of the
wicked one, inasmuch as it is so corruptible, and antiquated, and
worthless, it would follow then that it is incapable of sustaining the
virtue of the spirit or the movement of the
soul, and the most splendid
creation of the same. For just as, when a person puts a piece of
new
cloth into an old
garment, the rent is made worse;
1608
so also the body
would
perish if it were to be associated, under such conditions, with
that most brilliant production the
soul. Or, to use another
illustration: just as, when a man carries the
light of a
lamp
into a
dark place the
darkness is forthwith put to flight and makes no
appearance; so we ought to understand that, on the
soul’s
introduction into the body the
darkness is straightway banished, and
one
nature at once effected, and one man constituted in one
species. And thus, agreeably therewith, it will be allowed that
the new
wine is put
into new bottles, and that the piece of new
cloth is not put into the
old
garment. But from this we are able to show that there is a
unison of powers in these two substances, that is to say, in that of
the body and in that of the soul; of which unison that greatest teacher
in the Scriptures, Paul, speaks, when he tells us, that “God hath
set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased
Him.”
1609
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
